Re: xhtml-rdfa updated

Dan Brickley wrote:
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Shane,
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> I had a quick look at the draft before I _really_ disappear tomorrow
>> morning for a week:-) But I wanted to give my first set of reactions.
>>
>> - A stylistic thing: would it be possible not to use that frequently the
>> <meta> and <link> elements in the examples? This is more of a
>> 'messaging' issue than anything else, but I guess one of the main
>> message we want to put forward is that meta information can be put on
>> _any_ element, and are not part of the header (via link and meta) only.
>> Eg, 4.1 uses the <meta> element only, and a casual reader may think that
>> we are talking about attributes for that element only...
> 
> Emphasising that RDFa builds on <meta> and <link> is for other reasons
> prudent, I think. By establishing historical continuity, and reminding
> people of this, we show that RDFa brings together two long separated
> areas of W3C work. This is good for teaching RDFa, good for trust from
> users who'll feel their investment in our older specs was worthwhile,
> and perhaps might even help establish RDFa's position in the wider
> jumble of HTML-based languages floating around W3C.
> 

That is true. And I did not say _not_ to use <link> and <meta> at all.
But having a whole section using _exclusively_ <meta> is also
misleading... Ie, a balance has to be found.

I do think all this is a major problem, though, Shane's work is a HUGE
step forward. I hope that part of my message is clear:-)

Ivan

> Dan

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf